Super Injunctions

1356789

Comments

  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    Greg66 wrote:
    The BBC news website is reporting that the High Court has upheld the existing ban on journos naming the footballer.

    ATM this is nothing more than the ticker tape at the top of the page. Will be interesting to see the basis of the decision...

    Cue: tomorrow's press "The law is an ass", "Sack the Judges", "Free speech for newspapers NOW" "Ridiculous", etc, etc...

    I would go with a huge picture of Ryan Giggs and Gareth Barry with the headline 'Giggs and Barry trend on Twitter.......and in other news footballers win extension to superinjunctions".
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    What I'm struggling to determine is where you reside on this Greg?

    I'm struggling as well.

    Key issues for me:

    I generally think that Giggs has a right to privacy. I think Giggs could also argue successfully that unlike, say Beckham, his life isn't maintained in the public for publicity - this I believe to be the justification for Rooney being refused a super injunction.

    No matter how unfair it is on Imogen not being able to defend herself. She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account (personally), we don't know if she threatened to go to the papers - this could have been the catalyst behind the injunction.

    I don't think Twitter can be made to give the users personal details. However I think they will. If they don't then I can really see tougher laws being placed on online social networking and press reporting.

    I do however think Super Injunctions need to be revised so that they are used to protect what is clearly private details and not prevent information being published which is clearly "public interest".

    It seems to me that there is a grey area around what is in the public's interest and what is interesting to the public. Giggs and Imogen is interesting to the public IMO. Gorden Ramsey's sexual harassment of a staff member - where he has made millions shouting and swearing at people and chef's would literally kill to work for him - is a matter of Public Interest IMO (people need to know who they could be working for, for example).

    However, there may need to be a Super Injunction imposed on the victim who might sell her story or blackmail Gordon with the threat of selling the story - grey area.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If Giggs had originally allowed a press free for all (instead of being an asshole by leaving the poor girl out to the wolves)

    I may well have missed something, but how did he* leave the 'poor girl' out to the wolves? Didn't he* only do this because she was* trying to sell her** story?

    *allegedly
    **alleged
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    edited May 2011
    rjsterry wrote:
    I do love it when journos act as though they are the only thing standing between this country and oblivion.
    Actually, it's the reverse. The Rapture did happen but one of the parties got an SI...
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    What I'm struggling to determine is where you reside on this Greg?

    On the side of his mates and general professional self-interest I should imagine!
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    We can neither confirm or deny that she was or wasn't going to sell the story. We also do not know why she was going to sell the story. It may, no matter how far fetched, have been justified.

    However, what we do know is that Giggs has a super injunction and that part of that super injunction prevents her from naming the footballer in question.

    Ergo, by imposing her with a super injunction he has left her to the wolves, because she cannot defend herself while only her name is being named in the press.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    We can neither confirm or deny that she was or wasn't going to sell the story. We also do not know why she was going to sell the story. It may, no matter how far fetched, have been justified.

    However, what we do know is that Giggs has a super injunction and that part of that super injunction prevents her from naming the footballer in question.

    Ergo, by imposing her with a super injunction he has left her to the wolves, because she cannot defend herself while only her name is being named in the press.

    Rubbish :wink:

    If she wasn't trying to make money by selling her story then no-one would have known and she would have been able to continue her illustrious career without all the damage that this has done to her earnings......ooohhh......
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    John Hemming MP just named Giggs in a parliamentry debate on SI. So can the papers now report that an MP named Giggs in Parliament.....?
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account

    Who by? You, me, the Sun?
    Why is it any of our business what she does?
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    dhope wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account

    Who by? You, me, the Sun?
    Why is it any of our business what she does?

    Stoning, anyone?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    If she wasn't trying to make money by selling her story

    That's an assumption.
    then no-one would have known

    Unlikely, the press have been very impressive in the past when it comes to uncovering scandal.

    The fact of the matter is this:

    Rightly or wrongly she is unable to defend herself at the hands of the press and public. Hence my left to the wolves comment.
    John Hemming just named Giggs in a parliamentry debate on SI. So can the papers now report that an MP named Giggs in Parliament.....?

    Another issue is MP's using parliamentary privilege to out super injunctions. That's going to need addressing.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    bails87 wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account

    Who by? You, me, the Sun?
    Why is it any of our business what she does?

    Stoning, anyone?

    Stoning's too good for em
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    edited May 2011
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    We can neither confirm or deny that she was or wasn't going to sell the story. We also do not know why she was going to sell the story. It may, no matter how far fetched, have been justified.

    However, what we do know is that Giggs has a super injunction and that part of that super injunction prevents her from naming the footballer in question.

    Ergo, by imposing her with a super injunction he has left her to the wolves, because she cannot defend herself while only her name is being named in the press.

    She could always have kept quiet about it herself. If she thinks she has some complaint against him, then there are ways to deal with it other than getting the press involved. The last I read, a judge had specifically mentioned that he suspected she was trying to blackmail the at that time un-named footballer.

    EDIT: Was going to say, she'll be on Big Brother before you know it, but then I remembered she's already done that IACGMOOH?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    dhope wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account

    Who by? You, me, the Sun?
    Why is it any of our business what she does?

    If you hadn't subjected what I wrote to selective editing...
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account (personally)

    You can clearly see that I wrote in brackets (personally).

    Clearly this indicates that I don't mean me, you or The Sun?

    Personally/privately sheesh.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • MonkeyMonster
    MonkeyMonster Posts: 4,629
    JonGinge wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I do love it when journos act as though they are the only thing standing between this country and oblivion.
    Actually, it's the reverse. The Rapture did happen but one of the parties got an SI...

    Chuckle :D
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    We can neither confirm or deny that she was or wasn't going to sell the story. We also do not know why she was going to sell the story. It may, no matter how far fetched, have been justified.

    However, what we do know is that Giggs has a super injunction and that part of that super injunction prevents her from naming the footballer in question.

    Ergo, by imposing her with a super injunction he has left her to the wolves, because she cannot defend herself while only her name is being named in the press.

    She could always have kept quiet about it herself. If she thinks she has some complaint against him, then there are ways to deal with it other than getting the press involved. The last I read, a judge had specifically mentioned that he suspected she was trying to blackmail the at that time un-named footballer.

    As i pointed out before there is an assumption that Imogen got the press involved, however without her being able to defend herself she can neither confirm or deny that she did. It isn't out of the realms of possibility that the press found out through other means. On the other hand she could have threatened to leak the affair which resulted in Giggs seeking a super injunction (I wonder if his lawyers asked him "what's she like?".

    The judge couldn't imply that without breach of the super injunction surely? So may be journalists gruff. IMO.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • SimonAH
    SimonAH Posts: 3,730
    JonGinge wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I do love it when journos act as though they are the only thing standing between this country and oblivion.
    Actually, it's the reverse. The Rapture did happen but one of the parties got an SI...

    And actually I reckon that it's the journalists who have very 'king nearly actually taken us to oblivion by banging out doom and gloom stories because they had nothing else to report and dragging us into the worst recession we've seen for decades.

    Now, downbeat reporting on the economic recovery - that could do with a flipping SI!
    FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
    CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
    Litespeed L3 for Strava bits

    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    Well that is that then! Finally I am happy about something a Lib Dem has done in this government!


    SkyNewsBreaking: "Lib Dem MP John Hemming names Ryan Giggs in House of Commons as footballer at centre of injunction."
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If you hadn't subjected what I wrote to selective editing...
    She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account (personally)

    You can clearly see that I wrote in brackets (personally).

    Clearly this indicates that I don't mean me, you or The Sun?

    Personally/privately sheesh.

    Apologies, I assumed you meant that personally you felt she needs to be held to account. I agree that she can probably be scolded by friends and family rather than the mob.
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If she wasn't trying to make money by selling her story

    1.That's an assumption.
    then no-one would have known
    2.Unlikely, the press have been very impressive in the past when it comes to uncovering scandal.

    The fact of the matter is this:

    Rightly or wrongly she is unable to defend herself at the hands of the press and public. Hence my left to the wolves comment.
    John Hemming just named Giggs in a parliamentry debate on SI. So can the papers now report that an MP named Giggs in Parliament.....?

    Another issue is MP's using parliamentary privilege to out super injunctions. That's going to need addressing.
    1. True, meh.

    2. Defend herself against what? This is only in the public eye because she wanted it to be. The papers would report that Imogen Thomas (who?!) might have had an affair with an unknown footballer? Really? Even for the NOTW that's pushing it for 'news'.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    The only reason it's news is that celebrity gossip like this is cheap and easy for newspapers to produce. If people had more rights to privacy then they might have to get off their arses and do some proper investgative journalism. And phone hacking celebs is not 'proper' journalism.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited May 2011
    bails87 wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If she wasn't trying to make money by selling her story

    1.That's an assumption.
    then no-one would have known
    2.Unlikely, the press have been very impressive in the past when it comes to uncovering scandal.

    The fact of the matter is this:

    Rightly or wrongly she is unable to defend herself at the hands of the press and public. Hence my left to the wolves comment.
    John Hemming just named Giggs in a parliamentry debate on SI. So can the papers now report that an MP named Giggs in Parliament.....?

    Another issue is MP's using parliamentary privilege to out super injunctions. That's going to need addressing.
    1. True, meh.

    2. Defend herself against what? This is only in the public eye because she wanted it to be.

    But that is the assumption. It is probable but we actually do not know.

    The papers would report that Imogen Thomas (who?!) might have had an affair with an unknown footballer? Really? Even for the NOTW that's pushing it for 'news'.

    The papers knew that it was Ryan Giggs because they (the papers) were served the super injunction and within the injunctions the parties involved would have been named.

    The papers may have known before the injunctions were served, how they found out is open to speculation.

    The issue is whether in this instance the super injunction should be issued, whether it disadvantaged Imogen unfairly and then there is the whole enforcement of super injunctions in a digital age.

    (Phew, I could be a lawyer...)
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    Ha ha awesome:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6BIdje5 ... ture=share
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    edited May 2011
    DonDaddyD wrote:

    The papers knew that it was Ryan Giggs because they (the papers) were served the super injunction and within the injunctions the parties involved would have been named.

    Right, so they got the SI paperwork. So they know 2 people are having/had an affair, but the public know/care very little about one, and the 'interesting' one can't be named. So, again, the story would be that "a Z-list celeb is/was shagging someone who we can't name". Like I said, it's not news, or there's no 'public interest' argument to it.

    I'm against restrictions like this. But if it malkes the press actually do their jobs then is it a good thing? I'd rather have a 'proper' press that reports on actual important events, and leave the celeb gossip to the celeb gossip mags. Which should then be shut down because they're stupid and everyone reading one should be sent to re-education....

    :wink:
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    (Phew, I could be a lawyer...)

    M'lud, I should like to bring to the attention of the court the fact that Ms Thomas is bang tidy and that myself and my learned friend would be up her like a rat up a drainpipe :shock:
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • MarcBC
    MarcBC Posts: 333
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    No matter how unfair it is on Imogen not being able to defend herself. She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account (personally), we don't know if she threatened to go to the papers - this could have been the catalyst behind the injunction.

    I was not aware she was / is married. The married footballer is - he is the adulterer, not her. Therefore I am not sure what she needs to be held to account for?
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    MarcBC wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    No matter how unfair it is on Imogen not being able to defend herself. She is an adulterer and needs to be held to account (personally), we don't know if she threatened to go to the papers - this could have been the catalyst behind the injunction.

    I was not aware she was / is married. The married footballer is - he is the adulterer, not her. Therefore I am not sure what she needs to be held to account for?

    DDD is obviously a fan of the Saudi legal system..... :wink:
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    bails87 wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:

    The papers knew that it was Ryan Giggs because they (the papers) were served the super injunction and within the injunctions the parties involved would have been named.

    Right, so they got the SI paperwork. So they know 2 people are having/had an affair, but the public know/care very little about one, and the 'interesting' one can't be named. So, again, the story would be that "a Z-list celeb is/was shagging someone who we can't name". Like I said, it's not news.

    It goes deeper than that. Firstly the press think it is hugely ridiculous and unfair that super injunctions exist and they are taking every opportunity to challenge them. The story isn't about Imogen's affair it was about how the shackles were placed on them from reporting a story effectively.

    When I first read about Imogen's s affair it was written in such a way that (i) I felt compelled to learn who the footballer was (ii) the article carried the impression the press were complaining about the injunction itself. - The press are great at writing selectively see! This was the Sun and I think it was last year.

    M'lud, I should like to bring to the attention of the court the fact that Ms Thomas is bang tidy and that myself and my learned friend would be up her like a rat up a drainpipe
    Some Lawyers, especially barristers, are so bound by pomp and ceremony that any opportunity to let their hair down usually results in Roman styled drug and alcohol filled orgies. Only politicians are more decadent.

    Modern day rock stars believe me! Ask Greg!
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    Here is hoping this the end to the super injunction farce. Well done John Hemming!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog
  • squired
    squired Posts: 1,153
    I gave a link earlier where the Mail had an article about Giggs and his family. Yet another article appeared today...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... title.html

    You have to love them for outing him in their own way. Before the last week I don't ever remember seeing anything in the press about Giggs and his family.

Categories